Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 4th Nov 2011 22:20 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 495954
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Tony Swash
by frderi on Sat 5th Nov 2011 16:14
in reply to "RE: Comment by Tony Swash"
I'm Ford, I make a car design, patent it, and bring it to market. You're Hyundai, you see my car and you make a very similar one who's design only faintly differs from mine. Since you didn't have to prototype the design like I did, you were able to cut R&D costs to a great margin because I essentially designed it for you. So when you take your car to market you're able to undercut my profits. I take you to court. Let's see who wins.
RE[3]: Comment by Tony Swash
by JAlexoid on Sun 6th Nov 2011 15:39
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Tony Swash"
I'm Ford, I make a car design, patent it, and bring it to market. You're Hyundai, you see my car and you make a very similar one who's design only faintly differs from mine. Since you didn't have to prototype the design like I did, you were able to cut R&D costs to a great margin because I essentially designed it for you. So when you take your car to market you're able to undercut my profits. I take you to court. Let's see who wins.
How much you sunk into R&D is not a measure by which patents are granted nor should be granted.
And please, please, please.... Hardware related patents are in a totally different universe to intangible IP. They are much easier to define, identify and protect.
RE[3]: Comment by Tony Swash
by unclefester on Sun 6th Nov 2011 23:38
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Tony Swash"





Member since:
2005-08-10
You make a spoon, and I'll make a spoon. I'll see you in court if yours looks or functions remotely similar to mine.